If evolution is teh realz then why is not it happeningg nows?

[Jarod]

Here's the deal Mott... You are using Science which the Creator of life invented, to try and refute the Creator. First of all, it's not possible, secondly, it's profoundly silly and foolish. The very fact that science works in the way it does, the fact that physics work the way they do, the very nature of nature, is evidence it was designed by intelligence. When justifying his theory of relativity to a skeptic, Einstein said... "God doesn't roll the dice!"

To call it "intelegence" is insulting to God. God is not human, so many humans try to anthromorphisize God, to try to give God, human like qualities such as intelegence. Thats bullshit. Its not intelegence that created the scientific world, its devine grace at best. Our language is so limited we cant really even begin to describe it.... but to call it "intelegence" as if you could give God an IQ test is to greatly deminish God.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So you are sugesting that people follow a religious belief just in case that belief might be right?

lmao

Now that is even funnier than your ideas on what is or isn't science.

LMAO... No, I am not "suggesting" a thing! I stated what I think, make of it what you will. I don't follow a religious belief, why would I suggest others do so? I do, however, have the utmost respect for the Bible, and I think it is an invaluable resource for how mankind should live.

Honestly, I do hope you are right, that the Bible is just a bunch of nonsense that people shouldn't take seriously, and God is a myth. I would hate to think of what awaits you in the afterlife, if you are wrong about that. For me, I am going to live my life according to my personal spiritual guidance, and maintain respect for the religious believers of every faith, because I think that's my ultimate purpose to fulfill here on earth. Like I said, if I am wrong, I die and rot and become worm food... no big deal. At least I'll die knowing I was at peace with my inner self, and haven't made an enemy of God... if there is a God.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

To call it "intelegence" is insulting to God. God is not human, so many humans try to anthromorphisize God, to try to give God, human like qualities such as intelegence. Thats bullshit. Its not intelegence that created the scientific world, its devine grace at best. Our language is so limited we cant really even begin to describe it.... but to call it "intelegence" as if you could give God an IQ test is to greatly deminish God.

Amen Brother! Praise the Lord! Hallelujah!

 

[Cancel3]

Honestly, I do hope you are right, that the Bible is just a bunch of nonsense that people shouldn't take seriously, and God is a myth. I would hate to think of what awaits you in the afterlife, if you are wrong about that. For me, I am going to live my life according to my personal spiritual guidance, and maintain respect for the religious believers of every faith, because I think that's my ultimate purpose to fulfill here on earth. Like I said, if I am wrong, I die and rot and become worm food... no big deal. At least I'll die knowing I was at peace with my inner self, and haven't made an enemy of God... if there is a God.

Please show me where I ever said the Bible is a bunch of nonsense?

Please show me where I ever said God was a myth?



I will always fight to defend people's right to believe and to worship as they choose. You seem to be confused about that. You seem to be operating under the assumption that anyone who does not allow Christianity to run rampant over the US Constitution is anti-christian. You see, I am for every person's right to worship as they choose. That includes hindus, muslims, pagans, buddhists, baha'i, theists, deists, satanists, shamanists, shaolins, and anyone else.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Here's the deal Mott... You are using Science which the Creator of life invented, to try and refute the Creator. First of all, it's not possible, secondly, it's profoundly silly and foolish. The very fact that science works in the way it does, the fact that physics work the way they do, the very nature of nature, is evidence it was designed by intelligence. When justifying his theory of relativity to a skeptic, Einstein said... "God doesn't roll the dice!"

Dixie, debating science with someone as willfully and profoundly ignorant of science as you is a complete waste of my time.

But I am willing to do the Pepsi Challenge if you are.

Lets both post of an article on what we believe science to be and why ID is or is not science.

Then we'll allow a panel of judges (I suggest 3) with actual and real scientific credential (like myself) judge who is right and who is wrong.

I'm willing to take that challege against you anyday, though God knows why you would as it sure as hell wouldn't be a fair fight!

 

[Jarod]

Amen Brother! Praise the Lord! Hallelujah!

you are the one promoting intelegent design.

 

[Good Luck]

You're not a scientist are you? I'll try to explain this to you very clearly. This is a basic fundamental principle of science. If you don't understand this, you do not understand science.

Science models only and only natural phenomena. It only explains or attempts to explain nature. Nothing else.

One may believe in many belief systems at the same time with equal validity. One can believe in God, Religion, Flying Spaghetti Monsters and Science all at the same time. That is not the point I am making.

In the realm of science, when you are trying to understand a phenomena you must explain it from the view point of nature. Understand? You must! When you are explaining or modeling some phenomena the very moment that you interject a supernatural caustion what you are studying or modeling has ceased being science at that precise moment. What you are studying has now become something other than science. Science only utilizes explanations which have natural causes. Supernatural causes are automatically excluded from the realm of science. That does not mean that this belief in a supernatural causation is wrong. It simply means that it is not science.

Darwin understood that, Einstein understood that, Fermi understood that, Schroedinger understood that and I understand that.
This is a bedrock principle of science and has been since before Newton nearly 500 years ago.

Wrong. That is the atheistic approach to science. That is not true science because the objective of true science is to provide an understanding of how the universe works. IF part of the way the universe works is the result of unknown and (to date) untestable forces of an intelligence, then that is part of science to discover.

To state that any and all considerations of any influence on observed phenomenon be limited to current understanding of "natural forces" is much more of a science stopper than anyone saying "God designed it that way."

Again, saying "God designed it that way" does not prevent a true scientist from continuing to examine the universe to discover more about its inner-most workings. It is you who has the closed mind, and in having a closed mind, will (and probably do) make a damned poor scientist. It makes me wonder how many other preconceptions you let get in the way of scientific method.

 

[NOVA]

To call it "intelegence" is insulting to God. God is not human, so many humans try to anthromorphisize God, to try to give God, human like qualities such as intelegence. Thats bullshit. Its not intelegence that created the scientific world, its devine grace at best. Our language is so limited we cant really even begin to describe it.... but to call it "intelegence" as if you could give God an IQ test is to greatly deminish God.

The epitome of intelligence....unbelievable..

 

[Good Luck]

To call it "intelegence" is insulting to God. God is not human, so many humans try to anthromorphisize God, to try to give God, human like qualities such as intelegence. Thats bullshit. Its not intelegence that created the scientific world, its devine grace at best. Our language is so limited we cant really even begin to describe it.... but to call it "intelegence" as if you could give God an IQ test is to greatly deminish God.

You are using the wrong definition of intelligence.

The definition being referred to in ID is the generic term used to describe that an event and/or object is the result of deliberate, consciously planned manipulation. Intelligent design was a term originally coined to differentiate between objects such as a great pyramid compared to a termite tower. Both are highly complex structures, incredibly large in relation to its respective builders, but one is the result of intelligent design while the other is the result of instinctive behavior.

 

[Good Luck]

GL, Mott has agreed that many scientists believe in God. What he is saying in the passage you quoted has to do with using God as an explanation for how things came to be. He is pointing out the fact that using a deity as an explanation is not science.

No, he went farther than that. He made the obviously erroneous claim that the belief in God, that saying "God made it that way" stops scientific inquiry. It does not, as the fact that there are innumerable very good scientists whose belief in God in no way diminished their ability to do good, solid scientific inquiry. Many of them admitted that much of their inquiry was in pursuit of under standing God better by understanding His creation better.

Now the claim that religion is not science is valid. ID has yet to establish a solid enough line of inquiry to be called science, though there are proponents who are working on developing a testable hypothesis - to wit, that the various structures and observed outcomes we have knowledge of cannot be the result of unguided random events. But until they find a comprehensive set of statistical analyses to apply to that hypothesis, it remains untested, and therefore is not (yet) a true avenue of scientific inquiry.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Wrong. That is the atheistic approach to science. That is not true science because the objective of true science is to provide an understanding of how the universe works. IF part of the way the universe works is the result of unknown and (to date) untestable forces of an intelligence, then that is part of science to discover.

But science IS ATHEISTIC in the literal sense. The word " A Theistic" literally means "Without Religion". Science is indeed athiestic which does not mean that scientist are themselves are atheist but rather that the practice of science is without religion. It has to be or it would not work. Something being unknown or untestable is a different issue all together different then interjecting a supernatural causation as the cause of a phenomena. The moment you interject a supernatural causation you have stepped outside the realm of science. Science only "ONLY" studies nature and natural causation.

To state that any and all considerations of any influence on observed phenomenon be limited to current understanding of "natural forces" is much more of a science stopper than anyone saying "God designed it that way."

No it is not and that comment shows that you do not understand what science is. Science only studies nature. Period! Is there more to this universe than science can explain? Yes. Should humanity further their knowledge of these mysteries? Yes! But it is not science.

Again, saying "God designed it that way" does not prevent a true scientist from continuing to examine the universe to discover more about its inner-most workings. It is you who has the closed mind, and in having a closed mind, will (and probably do) make a damned poor scientist. It makes me wonder how many other preconceptions you let get in the way of scientific method.

Saying "God Designed it that way" does indeed not prevent a scientist from furthering their work unless they interject that statement as a cause for the phenomena they are studying. Then whatever it is they are studying has stopped being science at that precise moment. I'm not being closed minded about this. I am rather being very mindful of what science is and is not and how science works and how it does not work. Science has it's limits. It was never intended to study or model supernatural behavior and if you don't understand this most basic principle then you simply do not understand science.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

No, he went farther than that. He made the obviously erroneous claim that the belief in God, that saying "God made it that way" stops scientific inquiry. It does not, as the fact that there are innumerable very good scientists whose belief in God in no way diminished their ability to do good, solid scientific inquiry. Many of them admitted that much of their inquiry was in pursuit of under standing God better by understanding His creation better.

Now the claim that religion is not science is valid. ID has yet to establish a solid enough line of inquiry to be called science, though there are proponents who are working on developing a testable hypothesis - to wit, that the various structures and observed outcomes we have knowledge of cannot be the result of unguided random events. But until they find a comprehensive set of statistical analyses to apply to that hypothesis, it remains untested, and therefore is not (yet) a true avenue of scientific inquiry.

No I did not. That's a strawman and you are misrepresenting what I said. I used examples where interjecting supernatural causation stops the progress of science. I never said that believing in God stops science.

 

[Damocles]

No I did not. That's a strawman and you are misrepresenting what I said. I used examples where interjecting supernatural causation stops the progress of science. I never said that believing in God stops science.

You did. It may not have been your intention, but if you go back and read the post honestly you will see it too. It is what got me to post on the thread.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You did. It may not have been your intention, but if you go back and read the post honestly you will see it too. It is what got me to post on the thread.

No I didn't. I was using a rhetorical device to point out how ID is a science stopper.

If, for example, I am researching the mechanism of speciation and I draw the conclusion "The Intelligent Designer Designed it that way", by drawing this conclusion based on supernatural causation I have stopped scientific progress, on this specific question, because this is not science.

To emphasise my point, let me ask you a question and I desire a specific answer siting specific examples, not generalizations. When an ID supporter claims that speciation is to complex to have evolved by natural selection and therefore this is evidence of design by an Intelligent designer, how have they advanced our scientific knowledge of the mecanisms of speciation?

 

[Damocles]

No I didn't. I was using a rhetorical device to point out how ID is a science stopper.

If, for example, I am researching the mechanism of speciation and I draw the conclusion "The Intelligent Designer Designed it that way", by drawing this conclusion based on supernatural causation I have stopped scientific progress, on this specific question, because this is not science.

To emphasise my point, let me ask you a question and I desire a specific answer siting specific examples, not generalizations. When an ID supporter claims that speciation is to complex to have evolved by natural selection and therefore this is evidence of design by an Intelligent designer, how have they advanced our scientific knowledge of the mecanisms of speciation?

The rhetorical device was also a logical fallacy that inferred exactly as it was read by others. Assuming that everybody else has it wrong but you couldn't have inferred that even in error is a bit arrogant as well as just plain walking against the flow of reality.

By this time you should be able to intimately detail exactly how a salmon feels at breeding time.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The rhetorical device was also a logical fallacy that inferred exactly as it was read by others. Assuming that everybody else has it wrong but you couldn't have inferred that even in error is a bit arrogant as well as just plain walking against the flow of reality.

By this time you should be able to intimately detail exactly how a salmon feels at breeding time.

Have you ever had the feeling that your beating your head against a wall?

My rhetorical device was correct and accurate. The fact that others misinterpret the comments does not reflect on the comment themselves as it reflects on their lack of knowledge of what constitutes science.

You simply cannot insert or interject supernatural causation into the study of any phenomena and call it science.

For further understanding I suggest this link. It's an excellent summation of why evolution is science and why ID is not science. Particularly see Dr. Ken Miller's comments on science and religion and why applying supernatural causation to natural phenomenal is a science stopper.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defining.html

Also, I have to hold your feet to the fire. I notice you did not make an attempt to answer my challenge question.

 

[uscitizen]

Hmm I wonder why some on here do not slam Yurt like they do me when I am wrong. (Both times )

Surely it is not partisan in nature?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Hmm I wonder why some on here do not slam Yurt like they do me when I am wrong. (Both times )

Surely it is not partisan in nature?

Whimp!!

 

[Damocles]

Have you ever had the feeling that your beating your head against a wall?

My rhetorical device was correct and accurate. The fact that others misinterpret the comments does not reflect on the comment themselves as it reflects on their lack of knowledge of what constitutes science.

You simply cannot insert or interject supernatural causation into the study of any phenomena and call it science.

For further understanding I suggest this link. It's an excellent summation of why evolution is science and why ID is not science. Particularly see Dr. Ken Miller's comments on science and religion and why applying supernatural causation to natural phenomenal is a science stopper.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defining.html

Also, I have to hold your feet to the fire. I notice you did not make an attempt to answer my challenge question.

I made no attempt to answer your "challenge question" because (read the thread) I have stated several times that people who believe that ID is science would indeed have a "science stopper", but you are impervious to actual statements when you are defending a position inferred (it appears mistakenly if we are to take your word but your avid defense of the position seems to show otherwise) in your posts.

Your post did not differentiate between an ID supporter and a Believer overall. It was overly generalized and simplistic and therefore a logical fallacy.

In the group of those who may believe in an Intelligent Designer, not all fall within the group that extends ID as a scientific rather than philosophical theory. Again, when you are consistently "heard" to say something by separate people in exactly the same way, according to you, you "cannot possibly" have mistakenly inferred something. (Apparently, in your fictional world of the perfect Mottleydude all things are the mistakes of others even if the inference is seen repeatedly by separate posters.)

You have entirely based all your argument with me on some fictional support for ID as a "scientific theory". I have stressed several times throughout that some believers would indeed say "Jeebus did it" but that does not, in fact, mean that all believers will. Your originating post left no doubt that it was "believers" will say "Jeebus did it" and did nothing to narrow down that group to ID "Theorists".

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I made no attempt to answer your "challenge question" because (read the thread) I have stated several times that people who believe that ID is science would indeed have a "science stopper", but you are impervious to actual statements when you are defending a position inferred (it appears mistakenly if we are to take your word but your avid defense of the position seems to show otherwise) in your posts.

Your post did not differentiate between an ID supporter and a Believer overall. It was overly generalized and simplistic and therefore a logical fallacy.

In the group of those who may believe in an Intelligent Designer, not all fall within the group that extends ID as a scientific rather than philosophical theory. Again, when you are consistently "heard" to say something by separate people in exactly the same way, according to you, you "cannot possibly" have mistakenly inferred something. (Apparently, in your fictional world of the perfect Mottleydude all things are the mistakes of others even if the inference is seen repeatedly by separate posters.)

You have entirely based all your argument with me on some fictional support for ID as a "scientific theory". I have stressed several times throughout that some believers would indeed say "Jeebus did it" but that does not, in fact, mean that all believers will. Your originating post left no doubt that it was "believers" will say "Jeebus did it" and did nothing to narrow down that group to ID "Theorists".

I'm sorry but I just fail to see your point. What are you talking about?